Dear Playboy: Don't Abuse Trademark Law to Silence Critics

You'd think a controversial publisher like Playboy would recognize the importance of respecting free speech. But when feminist group FORCE: Upsetting Rape Culture created a parody site posing as the magazine, Playboy was quick to complain to the activists and their Internet service provider, May First/People Link. The crux of Playboy's complaint? The activists had used the Playboy name and logo.

The parody site was intended to raise awareness about the importance of consent and resisting what the activists call "rape culture." The campaign is funny, smart, and even educational. It was also immediately recognized by the press for the parody that it was.

So we figured this had to be a misunderstanding. EFF responded, explaining that the spoof was protected by First Amendment and other legal doctrines. We urged the company to withdraw its demand, and accept FORCE’s invitation to participate in—rather than fight—the movement to raise awareness about the importance of consent. From our letter:

As a news publication that has been involved in its share of controversy, we would expect Playboy to do its best to support political speech, rather than shutting it down. In addition, this political spoof is obviously designed to raise awareness about an important problem, one that we would hope Playboy would want to highlight as well.

In all of these cases, the silencing tactics follow the same script: locate and target the weakest link in the chain between the speaker and the audience. FORCE and May First/People Link may be willing to stand up to Playboy, but there's no guarantee that the same is true of the other intermediaries—like their upstream hosting provider.

Playboy is generally vocal about its commitment to freedom of speech and the First Amendment. Every year since 1979, the Hugh M. Hefner First Amendment Award—named after the magazine's founder—is granted at the Playboy Mansion. (It has been awarded to three EFF employees and EFF co-founder John Perry Barlow.) And the October issue even features an article praising so-called "hacktivists" for protecting and promoting online free speech. So it's puzzling and disappointing to see the organization step back from that commitment as soon as that speech includes its name.

We have posted our response in full. Here's the short version: Dear Playboy, You can stand up for free speech and consent, or take the same maximalist approach that has led to so many shameful online takedowns. Do the right thing.

Related Updates

In a win for free expression, a court has dismissed a copyright lawsuit against Happy Mutants, LLC, the company behind acclaimed website Boing Boing. The court ruled [PDF] that Playboy’s complaint—which accused Boing Boing of copyright infringement for linking to a collection of centerfolds—had not sufficiently established...

In a country where press freedom is already under grave threat, the revocation of an independent publication’s license to operate and a proposed amendment to the Bill of Rights are pushing journalists further into the margins. While the Constitution of the Philippines guarantees press freedom and the country’s media landscape...

A huge range of expressive works—including books, documentaries, televisions shows, and songs—depict real people. Should celebrities have a veto right over speech that happens to be about them? A case currently before the California Court of Appeal raises this question. In this case, actor Olivia de Havilland has sued...

Communities across the United States are considering strategies to protect residents’ access to information and their right to privacy. These experiments have a long history, but a new wave of activists have been inspired to seek a local response to federal setbacks to Internet freedom, such as the FCC’s decision...

In 2017, we’ve seen a dramatic rise in the number of high-profile cases where law enforcement has deployed digital surveillance techniques against political activists. From the arrest and prosecution of hundreds of January 20, 2017 Inauguration Day (J20) protestors to the systematic targeting, surveilling and infiltration of Water...

EFF fights for technology users. We believe that empowering and protecting users should be baked into laws, policies, and court decisions, as well as into the technologies themselves. Since our founding in 1990, we have paired this goal with the common-sense recognition that in order to properly consider these questions...

One of the most pernicious forms of censorship in modern America is the abuse of the court system by corporations and wealthy individuals to harass, intimidate, and silence their critics. We use the term “Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation,” more commonly known as a “SLAPP,” to describe this phenomenon. With...